On 8/15/07, Philip Taylor <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Interoperability and consistency can be achieved less expensively by
> removing a feature than by specifying it, implementing it, testing it,
> describing it in tutorials and books, etc. <input usemap> would have a
> similar cost to an entirely new feature, since there is no adequate
> specification of its current behaviour (HTML4 says almost nothing, and
> isn't even consistent about whether it's specified or not [1]) and it is
> not yet widely implemented or documented. The cost has to be balanced
> against the benefits, and it looks like people have not seen a
> convincing demonstration that the benefits are sufficient.
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.6.2 - "Future
> projects: ... Another possible extension would be to add the usemap
> attribute to INPUT for use as client-side image map when "type=image""
The way Firefox handles <input usemap> is great. At the moment, I
can't think of one thing about its implementation that is wrong or
unexpected.
Defining <input usemap> (if we decide to at some time) doesn't seem
like it'd be difficult at all since we have a great implementation for
reference.
--
Michael